WPI 365.31 Sexually Violent Predators—Conditional Release / Less Restrictive Alternative Placem...
6A WAPRAC WPI 365.31Washington Practice Series TMWashington Pattern Jury Instructions--Civil
6A Wash. Prac., Wash. Pattern Jury Instr. Civ. WPI 365.31 (7th ed.)
Washington Practice Series TM
Washington Pattern Jury Instructions--Civil
April 2022 Update
Part XIX. Involuntary Treatment
Chapter 365. Involuntary Treatment—Sexually Violent Predators
WPI 365.31 Sexually Violent Predators—Conditional Release / Less Restrictive Alternative Placement (LRA)—Elements
To establish that the respondent's proposed less restrictive alternative placement should not be granted, the State must prove one of the following beyond a reasonable doubt:
(1) That the proposed less restrictive alternative placement plan is not in(name of respondent)'s best interests; or
(2) That the proposed less restrictive alternative placement plan does not include conditions that will adequately protect the community.
[Paragraphs (1) and (2) are alternatives. To answer the question on the special verdict form “yes,” you need not be unanimous as to which of these two alternatives has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, so long as each juror finds that at least one alternative has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.]
[Paragraphs (1) and (2) are alternatives. The special verdict form has a separate question for each alternative. To answer either question “yes,” you must unanimously agree that the alternative identified in that question has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.]
On the other hand, if after weighing all the evidence, you have a reasonable doubt as to whether the State has met its burden of proof [on a question], then it will be your duty to answer the question “no.”
NOTE ON USE
Use this instruction with the following instructions, as appropriate: WPI 365.02 (Sexually Violent Predators—Conclusion of Trial—Introductory Instruction); WPI 365.30 (Sexually Violent Predators—Conditional Release (LRA)—Unconditional Discharge—Advance Oral Instruction—Voir Dire); WPI 365.03 (Basis of Expert Opinion—Limiting Instruction); WPI 365.04 (Opinion Testimony—Limitation on Consideration of Evidence); WPI 365.33 for defining “reasonable doubt” in a conditional release trial; WPI 365.12 for defining “mental abnormality”; WPI 365.12.01 for defining “personality disorder”; WPI 365.13 for defining “predatory”; WPI 365.14 for defining “likely to engage”; WPI 365.16 for defining “sexual violence”; use WPI 365.20 (Sexually Violent Predators—Concluding Instruction) for the concluding instruction; and WPI 365.37 (Sexually Violent Predators—Verdict Form— Conditional Release—LRA) for the verdict form.
Use the first bracketed paragraph if the court determines that the jury need not be unanimous as to means. Use the second bracketed paragraph if the court determines that the jury must be unanimous as to means. For further discussion, see the Comment below and the Comment to WPI 365.37 (Sexually Violent Predators—Verdict Form—Conditional Release—LRA).
COMMENT
This instruction is based on RCW 71.09.090; RCW 71.09.094; In re Detention of Thorell, 149 Wn.2d 724, 744, 751, 759–61, 72 P.3d 708 (2003); In re Detention of Jones, 149 Wn.App. 16, 201 P.3d 1066 (2009); In re Detention of Reimer, 146 Wn.App. 179, 190 P.3d 74 (2008); In re Detention of Bergen, 146 Wn.App. 515, 195 P.3d 529 (2008).
In State v. Halgren, 156 Wn.2d 795, 132 P.3d 714 (2006), the Supreme Court held that a respondent in an initial commitment trial can be committed as a sexually violent predator if the State can establish that the respondent suffers from either a “mental abnormality” or a “personality disorder.” Accord, In re Detention of Sease, 149 Wn.App. 66, 201 P.3d 1078 (2009). The Supreme Court relied on a line of cases from criminal jurisprudence, which establishes that for alternative means crimes, so long as substantial evidence supports each means, the jury need not unanimously agree as to by which means the offense was committed. See, e.g., State v. Arndt, 87 Wn.2d 374, 553 P.2d 1328 (1976).
The jury should only be instructed on those means for which substantial evidence has been presented. See, e.g., State v. Linehan, 147 Wn.2d 638, 642–43, 56 P.3d 542 (2002).
There have been no appellate cases addressing this issue in the context of an LRA trial. The WPI Committee was split as to whether Halgren applies to this statute. Accordingly, the instruction includes two separate bracketed paragraphs; the trial judge may choose between the two paragraphs depending on his or her ruling on Halgren.
For further discussion of the form of an instruction for an “alternative means” case, see WPIC 4.23 (Elements of the Crime—Alternative Elements—Alternative Means for Committing a Single Offense—Form).
[Current as of October 2020.]
Westlaw. © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
| End of Document |